I think he's mostly right about 4K. Unless everyone suddenly starts buying 90-inch TVs, 4K is going to be a non-starter. Whatever visible difference it will provide on such a relatively small screen size simply won't justify the massive bump in price. And streaming anything at that resolution will be a major problem until ISP's stop fucking over their customers with bandwidth throttling and caps (that makes streaming in 1080p a risky proposition, too). Media outlets will never broadcast in 4K (since they don't even broadcasting in full 1080p and probably never will). So with all that in mind, most people are going to say, "Why bother?"

I don't think he's entirely correct about 3D, though. It didn't take off the way that hardware manufacturers wanted it to, but there is definitely still a sizable audience for 3D. 3D versions of most of the bigger movies actually sell fairly well. I myself will opt for the 3D version of movies when I can (and if it's well done) and I don't even own a 3D TV yet. But I know that my next TV will likely support it so I figured I'd get ahead of the curve. And when I finally buy a house, there will be a media room in the basement with a 3D projector installed.

But there's another thing to consider here. 3D in the home right now is a pain in the ass. Right now -- it's not always going to be that way. Glasses-free 3D TV's are going to be ready for prime time within the next 5 years. They had a pretty good showing at CES this year -- Digital Bits has a pretty revealing rundown on them. One set in particular actually blew them away it was so good:

So, I don't think it's safe to pronounce 3D dead just yet. It was definitely rushed to market a little early though. Another little thing to consider is 4K TV's might actually be able to help current generation 3D. The only 2 methods of delivery are active -- with it's retardedly expensive glasses -- and passive which cuts the resolution in half. Active shutter glasses can be tough on people's eyes even though the picture is superior. Passive 3D has no such problems. The glasses are way cheaper, but the picture isn't nearly as nice. A 4K TV actually would fix that problem and allow a proper 1080p 3D image to be displayed passively.

_________________"You know the best thing about necrophilia? You don't have to bring flowers. They're usually already there." -- George Carlin

Last edited by Downhuman on Wed Apr 17, 2013 5:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I noticed all the new Sony 4K stuff coming out, and it looks like they are trying to get the edge on what could be the next big thing, but I agree with the article and Mr. HBO, the niche is smaller. I also think the home theater boast has topped out, so even though there will be those that NEED the latest and greatest and will work for it, that percentage is low, and the rest are happy with HD and see no need to jump into another standard.

Personally, I'm interested in seeing a 4K display with 4K and upconverted content, but I really don't feel any need to go better than what I have now.

In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be "replaced" by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten.- George Lucas 1988

Active shutter glasses can be tough on people's eyes even though the picture is superior.

I've seen this claim a lot, that active 3D is hard on the eyes, but that's never been my experience. If anything the increased brightness and sharper picture is easier on my eyes.

I've never had a problem either. I have the NVidia 3D Vision active shutter system on my laptop and it works great -- not one headache. But there are people who are a little more sensitive to it, I guess.

That and there's no reason at all for those glasses to be so expensive. The technology has matured enough to bring down manufacturing costs so now they're just being assholes.

_________________"You know the best thing about necrophilia? You don't have to bring flowers. They're usually already there." -- George Carlin

That pretty much sets the bar for off-brand 4K TV pricing (and that set is expected to drop to $1200 soon). Note the lower pixel-density, so that's clearly where Sony/Panasonic/etc. will push their marketing ("Full-4K!").

People still buy DVD's by the droves, customers that come in to "finally" upgrade to an HDTV still don't understand that the TV alone isn't why their favorite TV show and movie looks amazing. We see a ton of TV's returned because they didn't look as good as they did in the store, once we start talking to them we find they still have standard def cable and a DVD player. (Yes, bad sales person but still). Ultra HD 4K is going to fail, miserably and I'm surprised the industry didn't learn from the disaster 3D was. Only now is 3D affordable, with many sets coming with multiple glasses out of the box, and extra glasses down to just twenty bucks. HD has only now gotten a foot hold in the industry, it's not the right time to make it obsolete already.

Panasonic's new swipe-and-share is a fun gimmick, and they even have a stylus pen for touch-screen capabilities on their 50"+ TVs. Not sure how attractive that feature is, outside of the marketing/education market (who wants to draw on their $2000+ TV?). But being able to use android phones and tablets is finally becoming mainstream with TVs. This is the best feature consumer electronics have added in years, as it means those ridiculously overpriced harmony remotes can go the way of Texas Instruments calculators.

The bad news is that plasma is going by the wayside at the end of 2014. Panasonic is devoting its r&d to OLED, and Samsung will be sure to follow.

I don't use the word hate very often..but I will gladly use it to describe how I feel about the 120hz/TrueMotion/FloMotion/AutoMotion gimmick. It's utterly useless for film and video shot at 24fps. It has practical applications for videogaming, but that causes the visuals to lose any quality that everyone associates with being cinematic. And it doesn't add any detail that wasn't already there to begin with - it's just an illusion.

In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be "replaced" by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten.- George Lucas 1988

So, what I'm reading here is I need to get a plasma before they go the way of the Betamax?? I replaced my monster 65" rear projection a couple of years ago when a smaller monsterous 65" DLP. It was nice, for awhile. Now the bulb is going and I simply don't have the heart to throw down almost $200.00 for a new one. I knew I was just putting a Band-Aid on my problem two years ago now I've got to make a decision. (as well as save some money). LED's are beautiful but obvious blurring during action. LCD's (in my opinion) aren't much above 32"-40". I have a 32" in Panasonic 720p in the bedroom and I think it's the bees-knees for general television, Netflix and the occasional movie but that's it.

In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be "replaced" by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten.- George Lucas 1988

First of all "LED" and "LCD" is the same thing, it's just a different light bulb behind the panel ("LCD" is a CFL bulb, and "LED" is a bluer LED bulb).

OLED is completely different (each pixel is its own lightbulb) - which was introduced years ago, but remained prohibitively expensive above 20". Sony, and now Panasonic, are reintroducing it at larger sizes over the next few years.

In the LCD subset, you have TN, VA/PVA and IPS/IPSe panels. The cheaper LCD TVs use TN, and look awful for anything but computer usage. IPS, commonly used in 32" and up sets, look remarkably better, but aren't great at displaying fast motion (the problem is visually exaggerated above 32", so that's the sweet spot for LCD TVs). My daughter has a 32" Panasonic LCD in her room, and it looks great. The 120hz effect was designed to distract you from an LCD's inability to redraw the screen fast enough.

Plasma redraws at 600Hz, or about the same as an old CRT TV - hence if you grew up with CRT sets, it's the most comfortable to watch. Similar to OLED, the image is self-illuminating (so, dark areas of a plasma use less or no electricity, and white areas use a lot more). And since the whole thing is generated with plasma, it has the unfortunate (but temporary) effect of ghosting (if you switch from one extreme contrast to another, you can see a hint of the older image for a few seconds). Samsung and Panasonic have done a great job of reducing this effect over the years, and I don't even notice it anymore, not even when I turn the TV off. Some people, including Shoe, have noticed a prolonged ghosting effect when playing video games (so, if something doesn't move for a while, like a high score counter, the ghost remains there longer after you've switched to another input).

So, yes, you should get a plasma. Panasonic. GT series is the best bang-for-the-buck.

In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be "replaced" by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten.- George Lucas 1988

On the recommendation of Chris Knight, I bought a 50 inch Panasonic plasma 2 years ago, and I fucking love it. It looks awesome, and since I have many folks at fest looking at the screen from an extreme angle, there's none of the annoying loss of picture you get from an LCE/LED TV.

_________________I'm going to wait until you're sitting next to Ericubus and then I'll ask how you're feeling. - caryc

Panasonic has the better picture, Samsung has the better menu/UI/built-in apps.

And don't judge the TVs by looking at them at your place of work. The plasmas are intentionally set to look worse, because the profit margin on LCD sets is MUCH higher (which is also why blue shirts never recommend them to clueless shoppers). Even in the Magnolia section.

Panasonic has the better picture, Samsung has the better menu/UI/built-in apps.

And don't judge the TVs by looking at them at your place of work. The plasmas are intentionally set to look worse, because the profit margin on LCD sets is MUCH higher (which is also why blue shirts never recommend them to clueless shoppers). Even in the Magnolia section.

Uhm....no, I watched them setup TV's. They just take 'em out of the box and put them on the shelf. There's no diabolical plan at work there.

Panasonic has the better picture, Samsung has the better menu/UI/built-in apps.

And don't judge the TVs by looking at them at your place of work. The plasmas are intentionally set to look worse, because the profit margin on LCD sets is MUCH higher (which is also why blue shirts never recommend them to clueless shoppers). Even in the Magnolia section.

Uhm....no, I watched them setup TV's. They just take 'em out of the box and put them on the shelf. There's no diabolical plan at work there.

Maybe they come from the manufacturer that way. If you look at this thread:

Believe me, margins in TV's aren't the issue unless we're price matching. We're happy to sell any TV, management wants sales to attach the $100.00 monster HDMI and clean power centers because there is an incredible amount of margin in those. My employee price compared to retail would make you shit yourself.

Believe me, margins in TV's aren't the issue unless we're price matching. We're happy to sell any TV, management wants sales to attach the $100.00 monster HDMI and clean power centers because there is an incredible amount of margin in those. My employee price compared to retail would make you shit yourself.

I'm pretty sure the entire internet is aware of BB's upsell policy. There was a time when BB sold $1,600 HDMI cables, and HDMI cables with "virus protection."

In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be "replaced" by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten.- George Lucas 1988

Damn the lack of media - at that price, it's a great price for a PC monitor (for comparison, Monoprice charges $800 for their 30" 2560x1600 LCD monitor; Dell charges about $400 more). This Seiki TV has a resolution of 3840x2160, or the equivalent of 4 x 24" 1080p monitors placed in a grid formation.

On the recommendation of Chris Knight, I bought a 50 inch Panasonic plasma 2 years ago, and I fucking love it. It looks awesome, and since I have many folks at fest looking at the screen from an extreme angle, there's none of the annoying loss of picture you get from an LCE/LED TV.

Plasma is the way to go... bought an 60" ST50 back in February, blows my XBR4 out of the way.

So, we have a 4k on display and honestly the brand escapes me right now, I think either Sharp or Samsung. Admittedly, it's fucking beautiful. Sure it's running on a quadruple unconverted bluray but the level of detail in the video is indescribable. I haven't checked the price yet either. It's just memorizing when you stop and watch it.Doesn't change my view that they'll fail.

Netflix started uploading 4K content last week. I suspect Xmas 2014 will be the big push for 4K displays, because:

1. Netflix will have enough content by then.2. Steambox will be out (specifically, the concept). PC gamers have been clamoring for 120Hz 4k displays for years now (since modern GPUs are more than capable of working at that resolution). What's different now, is Steam's sudden - and enormous - increase in popularity. Hence, companies will start to, once again, pay attention to that sector.3. Sony's PS4 will, very likely, have downloadable 4k movies by then.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum